DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 20 January 2026 has been entered.
A Claim Interpretation section has been added in the present Office action.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 35 USC 112 rejections. However, Applicant’s amendments have provided grounds for a new 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 20 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portion of the claims. Therefore, the Claims remain rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 20 January 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 11, and 23-24 have been amended. Claims 6, 16, and 25-30 have been cancelled. Claims 31-32 are new.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-11, 13-14, 17-24, and 31-32 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “beam shaper” in claims 8 and 18 (understood as be a replacement for “means” that is used to shape a beam) and the functional limitation is “generates the processing laser beam.” Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “diffractive optical element.” Claims 9 and 19 have sufficient structure that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked for these claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-11, 13-14, 17-24, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “at least two first beams” (line 6 of claim 1 and line 4 of claim 11) and then later recite “three or more first beams” (line 27 of claim 1 and line 29 of claim 11). The number of first beams that are required is unclear—at least two or at least three? The claims disclose three or more second beams. The Arguments filed 20 Jan 2026 refer to figs. 6A-6E (page 9). These drawings show five beams, which suggest if there are three second beams, then two first beams were intended (total of five beams). For the purpose of the examination, the limitations will be interpreted as: “two or more first beams” (line 27 of claim 1 and line 29 of claim 11).
Claims 3-4, 7-10, 13-14, 17-24, and 31-32 are rejected based on their dependency to the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-11, 13-14, 17-24, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US-6608278-B1) in view of Nakagawa et al. (US-20180126491-A1) and Izu et al. (JP-6327453-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 1, Xie teaches a welding method (“Coated material welding with multiple energy beams,” title) comprising:
layering two or more plate materials (layers 30 and 32) each including a plating plate material (coating materials 28, 28’, 34, and 34’) having a preform (“steels,” column 4, line 17) on a surface of which a plating layer (“zinc-coated,” column 4, line 17; the coatings 28, 28’, 34, and 34’ are construed as being layers) is formed to form a workpiece (welding stack 50) having a lap region (region between layers 30 and 32) of the two or more plate materials (“two layers of material 30 and 32 in a lap-joint configuration,” column 4, lines 23-24);
disposing the workpiece (welding stack 50) such that the lap region can be irradiated with a processing laser beam (laser beam 14) that includes a plurality of beams including at least two first beams (beams 40 and 42);
generating the processing laser beam having a first power distribution shape (“Gaussian,” column 4, lines 51-56) in which the at least two first beams (beams 40 and 42) of the plurality of beams are disposed along a welding direction (weld direction 22) to form two or more power regions (“two laser spots of equal size (equal power),” column 5, lines 3-4) in a plane perpendicular to a light traveling direction (vertical direction; the two laser spots 24 and 26 are on the top layer’s upper surface, which is construed as the claimed “plane”);
irradiating a surface of the workpiece (upper surface of layer 30) with all beams (beams 40 and 42) included in the processing laser beam along a direction (vertical direction) in which the two or more plate materials are layered (layered with coatings 28, 28’, 34, and 34’), to form a single molten pool (“weld pool,” column 4, line 33) in the workpiece (welding stack 50; construed such that a weld pool forms in the welding stack causing it to be welded together), said single molten pool extending into each of the two or more plate materials (“the two materials are able to form a compatible weld pool and resulting weld,” column 4, lines 32-33);
moving the processing laser beam and the workpiece relatively while performing the irradiation (“the energy source 10 was moved relative to the weld stack 50 in the direction 22,” column 5, lines 12-13), and melting an irradiated area (“single keyhole,” column 5, lines 6-7; claim 1) of the workpiece to perform welding (“spot 26 followed behind spot 24 during the course of the welding process,” column 5, lines 16-17).
Xie, fig.
PNG
media_image1.png
760
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xie does not explicitly disclose sweeping the processing laser beam in the welding direction on the workpiece during a swing of all beams included in the processing laser beam to widen a surface area of the single molten pool formed by melting the workpiece in a width direction perpendicular to the welding direction in the plane in a state where the surface of the workpiece is irradiated with the all beams included in the processing laser beam, wherein the swing of all beams included in the processing laser beam is performed in a manner of wobbling or weaving such that mutual positional relationships of all beams included in the processing laser beam are maintained; the all beams included in the processing laser beam further include three or more second beams, the processing laser beam is generated to have the first power distribution shape in which three or more first beams of the plurality of beams are linearly disposed along the welding direction in the plane and to have a second power distribution shape in which the three or more second beams are disposed linearly along the width direction perpendicular to the welding direction in the plane, and the first power distribution shape intersects the second power distribution shape at a central position of the second power distribution shape.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Nakagawa teaches sweeping (spot 23a of the beam moves in direction 24, fig. 7) the processing laser beam in the welding direction (welding direction 24, fig. 7) on the workpiece (target 501, fig. 1) during a swing (spin locus 36, fig. 7) of all beams (spot 23a of beam 23, fig. 7; Nakagawa teaches using only one beam; construed as sweeping and swinging the two beams taught by Xie) included in the processing laser beam to widen a surface area of the single molten pool (spin locus widens the molten pool 22, fig. 1) formed by melting the workpiece in a width direction (vertical direction, fig. 7) perpendicular to the welding direction (direction 24, fig. 7) in the plane (surface 30, fig. 7; plane shown in figure 7) in a state where the surface of the workpiece is irradiated with the all beams included in the processing laser beam (spot 23a of beam 23, fig. 7; para 0058), wherein the swing of all beams (beam 23, fig. 7) included in the processing laser beam is performed (the beam moves in direction 24, fig. 7) in a manner of wobbling or weaving (while in the spin locus pattern 36, fig. 7).
Nakagawa, fig. 7
PNG
media_image2.png
452
558
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Xie to include, using a spin locus, in view of the teachings of Nakagawa, for each of the beams 40 and 42, as taught by Xie, in order to stir the molten pool of the weld using a spin locus but in manner where an unmolten portion is on the front edge of the keyhole of the spin locus, for the advantage of promoting the release of gas and metal vapors from a weld pool, because if the gas is not released, then bubbles can form that stay in the weld pool, which result in pits that degrade the quality of the weld (Nakagawa, paras 0003 and 0040; in figs. 6-8, Nakagawa describes how figs. 6 and 8 are paths for a spin locus that cause bubbles to form in contrast with fig. 7, which “suppresses the occurrence of metal vapor,” thus “reducing the occurrence of pits,” para 0060; Xie also teaches preventing the “entrapment of gas/vapor bubbles of the coating in the weld,” column 3, lines 31-32).
Xie/ Nakagawa do not explicitly disclose wherein the swing of all beams included in the processing laser beam is performed such that mutual positional relationships of all beams included in the processing laser beam are maintained; the all beams included in the processing laser beam further include three or more second beams, the processing laser beam is generated to have the first power distribution shape in which three or more first beams of the plurality of beams are linearly disposed along the welding direction in the plane and to have a second power distribution shape in which the three or more second beams are disposed linearly along the width direction perpendicular to the welding direction in the plane, and the first power distribution shape intersects the second power distribution shape at a central position of the second power distribution shape.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Izu teaches wherein the swing of all beams (beam spot 41 and beam spots 42a-42l, fig. 5D) included in the processing laser beam (beam 1, fig. 1) is performed such that mutual positional relationships of all beams included in the processing laser beam are maintained (the spots 42a-42l surround the main spot 41 in a “point-symmetric manner,” para 0034; the positional relationships between the beams are shown in fig. 5D; construed such that these positional relationships taught by Izu in fig. 5D are maintained in the spin locus path taught by Nakagawa); the all beams included in the processing laser beam further include three or more second beams (annotated in fig. 5D below), the processing laser beam is generated to have the first power distribution shape in which two or more first beams of the plurality of beams (annotated in fig. 5D below) are linearly disposed along the welding direction in the plane (energy intensity for beam 42 is shown in fig. 2b; construed such that there is an energy intensity for each of the beams 42b and 42h along the welding direction (horizontal direction) in the plane shown in fig. 5D) and to have a second power distribution shape in which the three or more second beams are disposed linearly along the width direction perpendicular to the welding direction in the plane (energy intensity for beams 42 and 41 are shown in fig. 2b; construed such that there is an energy intensity for each of the beams 42e, 42k, and 4 perpendicular to the welding direction (vertical direction) in the plane shown in fig. 5D), and the first power distribution shape (energy intensity for beams 42b and 42h, fig. 5D) intersects the second power distribution shape (energy intensity for beams 41, 42e and 42k, fig. 5D) at a central position of the second power distribution shape (the construed energy intensity distributions intersect at beam 41, fig. 5D; beam 41 is construed as being located at a “central position,” fig. 5D).
Izu, fig. 5D (annotated)
PNG
media_image3.png
619
704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Xie, in view of the teachings of Izu, by using beams 41, 42a, 42c-42g, 42i-42l, as taught by Izu in fig. 5D, in addition to the beams 40 and 42, as taught by Xi, by using a diffractive optical element 2, as taught by Izu, in order to use a beam profile that irradiates a wider area, enabling the gas that is generated during welding to be diffused into this wider area, for the advantage of reducing the risk of porosity, which can cause blowholes, pits, and other defects to form in the weld metal (Izu, paras 0007 and 0010).
Regarding claim 3, Xie teaches wherein a gas is generated when one of the plating layers (“vaporization of the coating material,” column 3, line 30) located inside the workpiece (welding stack 50) is evaporated, and the gas is discharged from a surface of the molten pool (“the coating vapor can only escape through the weld pool or keyhole,” column 1, lines 41-42).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Xie in view of Nakagawa and Izu as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 4. Specifically, Xie teaches wherein at least one of the first power distribution shape of the processing laser beam (“two laser spots of equal size (equal power),” column 5, lines 3-4) is set so that there is no welding defect caused by the gas (“separated dual beam lap welds was excellent,” construed as no defect, in contrast with the elliptical beam configuration from Table 1 where there was a “surface defect,” column 5, line 53). Additionally, Nakagawa teaches wherein at least one of the swing mode of the processing laser beam (fig. 7) is set so that there is no welding defect caused by the gas (“reducing the occurrence of pits 33,” para 0060).
Regarding claim 7, Xie teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the first power distribution shape and a swing mode of the processing laser beam is set according to a characteristic of the workpiece.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Nakagawa teaches wherein at least one of the first power distribution shape (“Laser output,” S104, fig. 13; para 0043) and a swing mode (“Rotation Frequency,” S104, fig. 13; para 0086) of the processing laser beam is set according to a characteristic of the workpiece (S101, fig. 13; para 0096).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Xie to include, determining the rotation frequency and laser output based on the welding target information, as taught by Nakagawa, when a spin locus is used, as taught by Nakagawa in fig. 7, for each of the beams 40 and 42, as taught by Xie, in order to set the laser welding conditions so that it is ensured that an unmolten portion is on the front edge of the keyhole of the spin locus, because for operators with little experience, it is difficult to derive the proper welding conditions necessary to repeat laser welding, where the calculations will often consume a large amount of time to be derived (paras 0096-0114; in these paragraphs, Nakagawa provides the conditions and formulas that ensure “the spin locus for irradiating unmolten portion 34 of welding target 501,” para 0110).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Xie in view of Nakagawa and Izu as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 8. Specifically, Izu teaches wherein a beam shaper (diffractive optical element 2, fig. 1) generates the processing laser beam (the DOE form the beam profiles, para 0030).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Xie in view of Nakagawa and Izu as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, Izu teaches wherein the beam shaper is a diffractive optical element (diffractive optical element 2, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Xie teaches wherein all of the two or more plate materials (layers 30 and 32) are plating plate materials (“zinc-coated steels,” column 4, line 17; the Specification discloses that “galvanized steel plates” are considered plating plate materials).
Regarding claim 11, Xie teaches a welding apparatus (figure) comprising:
a laser system (laser 12); and
an optical head (mirrors 16, 18, and 20; an optical head is not explicitly disclosed) that irradiates a workpiece (welding stack 50) with a processing laser beam (laser beam 14) generated so as to have a first power distribution shape (“Gaussian,” column 4, lines 51-56) in which at least two first beams (beams 40 and 42) are disposed along a welding direction (weld direction 22) to form two or more power regions (“two laser spots of equal size (equal power),” column 5, lines 3-4) in a plane perpendicular to a light traveling direction from a laser beam output from the laser system (vertical direction; the two laser spots 24 and 26 are on the top layer’s upper surface, which is construed as the claimed “plane”) to melt an irradiated area (“single keyhole,” column 5, lines 6-7; claim 1) of the workpiece to perform welding (“spot 26 followed behind spot 24 during the course of the welding process,” column 5, lines 16-17), the processing laser beam including a plurality of beams that includes the at least two first beams (beams 40 and 42), wherein:
the workpiece (welding stack 50) has a configuration in which two or more plate materials (layers 30 and 32) each including a plating plate material (coating materials 28, 28’, 34, and 34’) having a preform (“steels,” column 4, line 17) on a surface of which a plating layer (“zinc-coated,” column 4, line 17; the coatings 28, 28’, 34, and 34’ are construed as being layers) is formed are layered such that the workpiece has a lap region (region between layers 30 and 32) of the two or more plate materials (“two layers of material 30 and 32 in a lap-joint configuration,” column 4, lines 23-24),
the optical head has a configuration in which the processing laser beam and the workpiece are capable of moving relatively (“the energy source 10 was moved relative to the weld stack 50 in the direction 22,” column 5, lines 12-13) to perform the melting to perform the welding (“spot 26 followed behind spot 24 during the course of the welding process,” column 5, lines 16-17);
in a state where the lap region (region between layers 30 and 32) of the surface of the workpiece (upper surface of layer 30) is irradiated with the all beams (beams 40 and 42) included in the processing laser beam along a direction (vertical direction) in which the two or more plate materials are layered to form a single molten pool (“weld pool,” column 4, line 33) in the workpiece (welding stack 50; construed such that a weld pool forms in the welding stack causing it to be welded together), said single molten pool extending into each of the two or more plate materials (“the two materials are able to form a compatible weld pool and resulting weld,” column 4, lines 32-33).
Xie does not explicitly disclose an optical head; sweeping the processing laser beam on the workpiece in the welding direction while swinging all beams included in the processing laser beam to widen a surface area of a single molten pool formed by melting the workpiece in a width direction perpendicular to the welding direction in the plane; and the swing of all beams included in the processing laser beam is performed in a manner of wobbling or weaving such that mutual positional relationships of all beams included in the processing laser beam are maintained; the all beams included in the processing laser beam further include three or more second beams, the processing laser beam is generated to have the first power distribution shape in which three or more first beams of the plurality of beams are linearly disposed along the welding direction in the plane and to have a second power distribution shape in which the three or more second beams are disposed linearly along the width direction perpendicular to the welding direction in the plane, and the first power distribution shape intersects the second power distribution shape at a central position of the second power distribution shape.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Nakagawa teaches an optical head (laser head 2, fig. 1); sweeping (beam moves in direction 24, fig. 7) the processing laser beam (spin locus 36, fig. 7) on the workpiece (target 501, fig. 1) in the welding direction (welding direction 24, fig. 7) while swinging all beams included in the processing laser beam (spot 23a of beam 23, fig. 7; Nakagawa teaches using only one beam; construed as sweeping and swinging the two beams taught by Xie) to widen a surface area of a single molten pool (spin locus widens the molten pool 22, fig. 1) formed by melting the workpiece in a width direction (vertical direction, fig. 7) perpendicular to the welding direction (direction 24, fig. 7) in the plane (surface 30, fig. 7; plane shown in figure 7) in a state where the lap region of the surface of the workpiece is irradiated with the all beams included in the processing laser beam (spot 23a of beam 23, fig. 7; para 0058); and the swing of all beams (beam 23, fig. 7) included in the processing laser beam is performed (the beam moves in direction 24, fig. 7) in a manner of wobbling or weaving (while in the spin locus pattern 36, fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Xie to include, using a laser head and a spin locus, in view of the teachings of Nakagawa, for the mirrors 16, 18, and 20 as well as the beams 40 and 42, as taught by Xie, in order to use a containerized laser head where the optics can be controlled and automated by a robot, and in order to stir the molten pool of the weld using a spin locus but in manner where an unmolten portion is on the front edge of the keyhole of the spin locus, for the advantage of promoting the release of gas and metal vapors from a weld pool, because if the gas is not released, then bubbles can form that stay in the weld pool, which result in pits that degrade the quality of the weld (Nakagawa, paras 0003, 0024, and 0040; in figs. 6-8, Nakagawa describes how figs. 6 and 8 are paths for a spin locus that cause bubbles to form in contrast with fig. 7, which “suppresses the occurrence of metal vapor,” thus “reducing the occurrence of pits,” para 0060; Xie also teaches preventing the “entrapment of gas/vapor bubbles of the coating in the weld,” column 3, lines 31-32).
Xie/ Nakagawa do not explicitly disclose the swing of all beams included in the processing laser beam is performed such that mutual positional relationships of all beams included in the processing laser beam are maintained; the all beams included in the processing laser beam further include three or more second beams, the processing laser beam is generated to have the first power distribution shape in which three or more first beams of the plurality of beams are linearly disposed along the welding direction in the plane and to have a second power distribution shape in which the three or more second beams are disposed linearly along the width direction perpendicular to the welding direction in the plane, and the first power distribution shape intersects the second power distribution shape at a central position of the second power distribution shape.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Izu teaches wherein the swing of all beams (beam spot 41 and beam spots 42a-42l, fig. 5D) included in the processing laser beam (beam 1, fig. 1) is performed such that mutual positional relationships of all beams included in the processing laser beam are maintained (the spots 42a-42l surround the main spot 41 in a “point-symmetric manner,” para 0034; the positional relationships between the beams are shown in fig. 5D; construed such that these positional relationships taught by Izu in fig. 5D are maintained in the spin locus path taught by Nakagawa); the all beams included in the processing laser beam further include three or more second beams (annotated in fig. 5D above), the processing laser beam is generated to have the first power distribution shape in which two or more first beams (annotated in fig. 5D above) of the plurality of beams are linearly disposed along the welding direction in the plane (energy intensity for beam 42 is shown in fig. 2b; construed such that there is an energy intensity for each of the beams 42b and 42h along the welding direction (horizontal direction) in the plane shown in fig. 5D) and to have a second power distribution shape in which the three or more second beams are disposed linearly along the width direction perpendicular to the welding direction in the plane (energy intensity for beams 42 and 41 are shown in fig. 2b; construed such that there is an energy intensity for each of the beams 42e, 42k, and 4 perpendicular to the welding direction (vertical direction) in the plane shown in fig. 5D), and the first power distribution shape (energy intensity for beams 42b and 42h, fig. 5D) intersects the second power distribution shape (energy intensity for beams 41, 42e and 42k, fig. 5D) at a central position of the second power distribution shape (the construed energy intensity distributions would intersect at beam 41, fig. 5D; beam 41 is construed as being located at a “central position,” fig. 5D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Xie, in view of the teachings of Izu, by using beams 41, 42a, 42c-42g, 42i-42l, as taught by Izu in fig. 5D, in addition to the beams 40 and 42, as taught by Xi, by using a diffractive optical element 2, as taught by Izu, in order to use a beam profile that irradiates a wider area, enabling the gas that is generated during welding to be diffused into this wider area, for the advantage of reducing the risk of porosity, which can cause blowholes, pits, and other defects to form in the weld metal (Izu, paras 0007 and 0010).
Regarding claim 13, Xie teaches wherein a gas is generated when one of the plating layers (“vaporization of the coating material,” column 3, line 30) located inside the workpiece (welding stack 50) is evaporated, and the gas is discharged from a surface of the molten pool (“the coating vapor can only escape through the weld pool or keyhole,” column 1, lines 41-42).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Xie in view of Nakagawa and Izu as set forth above regarding claim 11 teaches the invention of claim 14. Specifically, Xie teaches wherein at least one of the first power distribution shape of the processing laser beam (“two laser spots of equal size (equal power),” column 5, lines 3-4) is set so that there is no welding defect caused by the gas (“separated dual beam lap welds was excellent,” construed as no defect, in contrast with the elliptical beam configuration from Table 1 where there was a “surface defect,” column 5, line 53). Additionally, Nakagawa teaches wherein at least one of the swing mode of the processing laser beam (fig. 7) is set so that there is no welding defect caused by the gas (“reducing the occurrence of pits 33,” para 0060).
Regarding claim 17, Xie teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the first power distribution shape and a swing mode of the processing laser beam is set according to a characteristic of the workpiece.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Nakagawa teaches wherein at least one of the first power distribution shape (“Laser output,” S104, fig. 13; para 0043) and a swing mode (“Rotation Frequency,” S104, fig. 13; para 0086) of the processing laser beam is set according to a characteristic of the workpiece (S101, fig. 13; para 0096).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Xie to include, determining the rotation frequency and laser output based on the welding target information, as taught by Nakagawa, when a spin locus is used, as taught by Nakagawa in fig. 7, for each of the beams 40 and 42, as taught by Xie, in order to set the laser welding conditions so that it is ensured that an unmolten portion is on the front edge of the keyhole of the spin locus, because for operators with little experience, it is difficult to derive the proper welding conditions necessary to repeat laser welding, where the calculations will often consume a large amount of time to be derived (paras 0096-0114; in these paragraphs, Nakagawa provides the conditions and formulas that ensure “the spin locus for irradiating unmolten portion 34 of welding target 501,” para 0110).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Xie in view of Nakagawa and Izu as set forth above regarding claim 11 teaches the invention of claim 18. Specifically, Izu teaches wherein a beam shaper (diffractive optical element 2, fig. 1) generates the processing laser beam (the DOE form the beam profiles, para 0030).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Xie in view of Nakagawa and Izu as set forth above regarding claim 11 teaches the invention of claim 19. Specifically, Izu teaches wherein the beam shaper is a diffractive optical element (diffractive optical element 2, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Xie teaches wherein all of the two or more plate materials (layers 30 and 32) are plating plate materials (“zinc-coated steels,” column 4, line 17; the Specification discloses that “galvanized steel plates” are considered plating plate materials).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Xie in view of Nakagawa and Izu as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 21. Specifically, Nakagawa teaches wherein the swing of all beams (spot 23a of beam 23, fig. 7) included in the processing laser beam includes swinging in a circular (“circular shape,” para 0118; fig. 5 shows a circular shape) or elliptical pattern (“spiral shape,” para 0118; the spiral shape in fig. 7 is construed as having an elliptical shape in a vertical direction).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Xie in view of Nakagawa and Izu as set forth above regarding claim 11 teaches the invention of claim 22. Specifically, Nakagawa teaches wherein the swing of all beams (spot 23a of beam 23, fig. 7) included in the processing laser beam includes swinging in a circular (“circular shape,” para 0118; fig. 5 shows a circular shape) or elliptical pattern (“spiral shape,” para 0118; the spiral shape in fig. 7 is construed as having an elliptical shape in a vertical direction).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Xie in view of Nakagawa and Izu as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 23. Specifically, Izu teaches wherein the beams (beams in fig. 5D) included in the processing laser beam (beam 1, fig. 1) are spaced apart from each other in the plane (the beams in the plane shown in fig. 5D are spaced apart from each other). Additionally, Nakagawa teaches the swing (spin locus 36, fig. 7) of all beams (spot 23a of beam 23, fig. 7) included in the processing laser beam is performed in the width direction (vertical direction, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Xie in view of Nakagawa and Izu as set forth above regarding claim 11 teaches the invention of claim 24. Specifically, Izu teaches wherein the beams (beams in fig. 5D) included in the processing laser beam (beam 1, fig. 1) are spaced apart from each other in the plane (the beams in the plane shown in fig. 5D are spaced apart from each other). Additionally, Nakagawa teaches the swing (spin locus 36, fig. 7) of all beams (spot 23a of beam 23, fig. 7) included in the processing laser beam is performed in the width direction (vertical direction, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Xie in view of Nakagawa and Izu as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 23. Specifically, Izu teaches wherein the second power distribution shape (energy intensity for beams 41, 42e and 42k, fig. 5D) intersects the first power distribution shape (energy intensity for beams 42b and 42h, fig. 5D) at a central position of the first power distribution shape (the construed energy intensity distributions intersect at beam 41, fig. 5D; beam 41 is construed as being located at a “central position,” fig. 5D).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Xie in view of Nakagawa and Izu as set forth above regarding claim 11 teaches the invention of claim 23. Specifically, Izu teaches wherein the second power distribution shape (energy intensity for beams 41, 42e and 42k, fig. 5D) intersects the first power distribution shape (energy intensity for beams 42b and 42h, fig. 5D) at a central position of the first power distribution shape (the construed energy intensity distributions intersect at beam 41, fig. 5D; beam 41 is construed as being located at a “central position,” fig. 5D).
Response to Argument
Applicant's Arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Xie and Nakagawa combined with Izu.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson et al. (US-4873415-A) teach a weave pattern for galvanized metal.
Olsen et al. (US-20150224597-A1) teach a five-beam beam profile (fig. 13).
Tsutsui et al. (JP-2018051607-A) teach a beam profile similar to Izu.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 20 March 2026